The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic critic review scores are in for Elizabeth Banks’ upcoming Charlie’s Angels film, and reviewers are calling it “feminist virtue signalling.”

Rotten Tomatoes

On Rotten Tomatoes, the film currently has a 66% Tomatometer score from 29 critics with an average rating of 5.83 out of 10. There are 19 fresh reviews and 10 rotten reviews.

Here’s what the critics are saying:

Michael Joshua Rowin at Slant Magazine gives the film a 1.5/4. He writes, “All the feminist virtue-signaling in the world can’t conceal the film’s creative conservatism.”

Ashley Menzel at We Live Entertainment gives the full a fresh score. She writes, “Elizabeth Banks has created a non-stop kick-ass film that celebrates the strength of women without beating the audience over the head with it.”

Related: Long Range Box Office Tracking Predicts Poor Opening Weekend for Kristen Stewart’s Charlie’s Angels Movie

Hoai-Tran Bui at Slashfilm gives the film a 6/10. She writes, “Stewart is the scene-stealing star of Charlie’s Angels, swaggering through the movie like a pure force of chaotic, extremely Sapphic energy.”

Kate Sanchez at But Why Tho? A Geek Community gives the film a 5/10. She writes, “Charlie’s Angels is a film that feels detached from itself, unsure what it wants to be…The film’s cheekiness is enough to get its wings.”

J. Don Birnam at Splash Report gives the film a B+. He writes, “In the age of remakes meets #TimesUp, what better than a reloaded Charlie’s Angels? Elizabeth Banks and Kristen Stewart bring oodles of talent to otherwise predictable but entertaining new film.”

Charlie's Angels

Blake Goble at Consequence of Sound gives the film a B. He writes, “Charlie’s Angels feels like a course correction on the whole concept, written, directed, by, for, and about women.”

Joshua Rothkopf at Time Out gives the film a 2 out of 5. He writes, “For all of its #MeToo heavy lifting, though, the film still doesn’t work, mainly for the same reasons as before: Constructed as symbols (not human beings), these characters have too much spy stuff to do and yet, not quite enough.”

Related: Elizabeth Banks on Charlie’s Angels: Women Are The Audience and The Message Is To “Believe Women”

Scott Mendelson at Forbes gives the film a 6 out of 10. He writes, “Kristen Stewart, Ella Balinska and Noami Scott are terrific together, the film isn’t afraid to be a little cynical and it mostly works as a pulpy female-directed action movie that happens to star three women.”

Beandra July at The Hollywood Reporter gives the film a fresh score. She writes, “Banks brings Charlie’s Angels into the modern age with flair, all while unapologetically raising a feminist flag, championing female friendships and subtly making a point about the urgency of the ongoing climate crisis.”


On Metacritic, the film currently has a 54 Metascore from 16 critics. There are 8 positive reviews, 7 mixed, and one negative.

Here’s what the critics are saying:

Rosie Knight at IGN gives the film an 81. She writes, “An entertaining plot, impressive script, fantastic cast, and awesomely shot action make Charlie’s Angels one of the most unexpectedly fun films of the year.”

David Ehrlich at IndieWire gives the film a 75. He writes, “Nobody really asked for another “Charlie’s Angels” reboot, but this one will leave you eager for more. It seems these women might still have the element of surprise on their side, after all.”

Owen Gleiberman at Variety gives the film a 70. He writes, “The movie is relentless, it’s pulpy and exciting, it’s unabashedly derivative, and at an hour and 58 minutes it’s a little too much of a rousingly of-the-moment feministic but still rather standard-issue thing.”

Related: Charlie’s Angels Reboot Actress Kristen Stewart Describes Film as “Woke”

Darren Franich at Entertainment Weekly gives the movie a 67. He writes, “This new Charlie’s Angels gets very crush-y between silly excess and striving ambition, but even the sugar is flammable.”

Elizabeth Weizman at TheWrap gives the film a 65. She writes, “These women wear what they want, love who they want, find fulfillment in their power, and support each other unconditionally. They’re not undermined by a script that highlights their flaws or insecurities, or a camera that reflexively leers at them. They get to just be, with all the freedoms and potential of any other fictional heroes.”

Charlie's Angels

Benjamin Lee at The Guardian gives the film a 60. He writes, “There’s intermittent fun to be had in this throwaway relaunch of the female secret agent franchise but the party is cut short by incoherent action and a clunky script.”

Katie Rife at AV Club gives the movie a 50. She writes, “The overall look of the film has the shiny, empty appearance of a newly rehabbed condo, and the quips about women’s love of cheese and gigantic closets have a similarly hollow sassy-greeting-card feel. But the outfits in those closets, it must be said, are fabulous.”

Related: Charlie’s Angels Actress Kristen Stewart Claims She Communicates With Ghosts

Kimber Myers at The Playlist gives the film a 42. They write, “There’s no big action set piece à la “Mission: Impossible” here and no single line of memorable dialogue to reference. But someone will have created a supercut of Kristen Stewart’s best moments on whatever app replaces YouTube, and that will remain more indelible than the movie as an actual movie, especially for the girls who see themselves or women they want to see on screen”

Kenneth Turan at the Los Angeles Times gives the film a 40. He writes, “Instead of engaging what we get is a plodding, unfocused effort with few genuine thrills to speak of, the kind of movie that would play best on an airplane when you are eager to kill time.”

What do you make of these critic reviews? Do you plan on seeing Charlie’s Angels?

  • About The Author

    John F. Trent
    Founder and Editor-in-Chief

    John is the Editor-in-Chief here at Bounding Into Comics. He is a massive Washington Capitals fan, lover of history, and likes to dabble in economics and philosophy.